Immaculate Conception?

[FireDragon76]

And I'm saying that God could have accomplished that in some other way if he'd chosen.

Sure, they discussed this stuff in the middle ages and even back to the patristic era. God could have saved us all by being incarnate in a donkey or just writing "You are saved" in the sky, but it wouldn't be very fitting for us as human beings. It wouldn't point to something that God wanted to disclose about his nature.

 

[CrystalDragon]

GOD's HOLINESS
And man's acknowledgement of both GOD's HOLINESS and GRACE
that HE...ALONE...provided THE WAY back home

How exactly would you define "Holiness"?

Question for you Crystal


Do you think if we were still in the garden and did not eat of the forbidden tree that any would have died?

Maybe not, but there seemed to be other people in the world that Cain encountered, with no indication that they were descended from Adam and Eve. There may have been other humans (or perhaps beings similar to humans), Adam and Eve were the ones who were chosen by God as being perfect yet ignorant. I don't think anything in the Garden would have died except plants.

And these rebellious angels were cast out because of it

Again showing the HOLINESS of GOD that nothing that does evil or causes sin can be in HIS PRESENCE

Where exactly were rebellious angels cast out of heaven? That only possibility could be said to be in the symbolism of Revelation. Though I think there was that one point with human-angel hybrids, actually, come to think of it.

And if there was sin in heaven then, why assume we'll be completely sinless? Why assume there couldn't be rebellion again?

 

[PrettyboyAndy]

Question for you Crystal


Do you think if we were still in the garden and did not eat of the forbidden tree that any would have died?

I think no one would have died if no one disobeyed God

 

[Albion]

Sure, they discussed this stuff in the middle ages and even back to the patristic era. God could have saved us all by being incarnate in a donkey or just writing "You are saved" in the sky, but it wouldn't be very fitting for us as human beings. It wouldn't point to something that God wanted to disclose about his nature.

I do agree, and it wouldn't have half the impact as the Incarnation, Crucifixion, Resurrection, and Ascension, even considering the drama involved with skywriting.

 

[miknik5]

I'm tired

Satan was a covering angel
He didn't want to cover until the fullness of time would come

He knew GOD's plan from the beginning
He just didn't like it

He was cast out PERMANENTLY from his original home

There's no hope for him and those who followed him

So while the day of their destruction lingers, they go out like roaring lions wishing to deceive whomever they can

They know they stand defeated and they know their time is short

Their work is to deceive and cause confusion and steal from GOD what should rightfully belong to GOD

The lie from the beginning remains today. Lying voices whispering "did GOD really say?"

Multiply that lie in those who have accepted the lie, and you have many tainted seeds in GOD's field sowing in seeds of confusion and deception at every turn

 

[miknik5]

I'm going to ask you a different way since you avoided answering directly

Why was there, from the beginning, a TREE of LIFE in the garden of the HOLY PRESENCE of GOD?

Adam and Eve, before they donned, were fully alive

Why would they need to eat of the TREE of LIFE, Given they were not dead and would not die until after they disobeyed

 

[miknik5]

I think no one would have died if no one disobeyed God

Thank you
And yet from the beginning, while Afam and Eve were still in the garden, before they had disobeyed, there stood in the midst of the garden THE TREE OF LIFE.

in a garden where all were fully alive

 

[miknik5]

And if there was sin in heaven then, why assume we'll be completely sinless? Why assume there couldn't be rebellion again?

There was no overlooked sin in Heaven. It was rebellion and it was handled immediately.

There will be rebellion again and The 1000 year reign will clean up those "loose ends immediately after the 1000 year reign when Satan is let loose to gather the "false kings" of the earth together for the great....OPEN REBELLION

 

[miknik5]

Here's the thing, the 1000 year reign is a taste of a "temporal heaven" and men who have experienced the peace and goodness (because Satan is bound)

when Satan is let loose, will make manifest clearly when they openly rebel that their hearts were elsewhere and they won't be able to blame the iniquity in them on Satan because Satan was bound during that reign

 

[miknik5]

Crystal dragon,

There were thre things GOD blessed us with:

Filling the earth
Having dominion
Subduing the earth

Which one did we fail miserably at?

 

[miknik5]

There's only ONE who is going to fulfill that last blessing

 

[kepha31]

And Catholics create them when they need their faith to be bolstered.

That's a nasty thing to say. Any so called "miracles" are thoroughly investigated by top scientists and medical experts. Only when they have no explanation is their findings presented to the Church who then decides if the matter is worth making known. This is nothing like the largely fake "healings" paraded by Protestant ministers on TV.
The Church does not bother with sensationalist nonsense like "Mary-on-a-taco".

SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE FOR MIRACLES

"...The Medical committee at Lourdes is totally independent of the Church. They use skeptics on the committees, the rules are geared to control for remission. They screen our remission. They are required to use only the best medical evidence, to consult the doctors of the patients and they cannot make decisions without obtaining the medical records of those doctors. They examine the patients. It does have to be proven that the people were sick beforehand! They will only choose a case when they cannot find a naturalistic explanation.
i am not claiming that these cases "prove"anything. But in each case there is enough to make the leap of faith, filling in the gap with a good extraordinary pile of evidence. Atheists and skeptical Protestants are always asserting we need extraordinary evidence. This is evidence. What most atheists/skeptical Protestants mean by that is a little game of raise the bar. I have played this game, met all their demands for documented miracles and they want more. They keep raising the bar until it turns out they will not believe until you give them regeneration of severed limbs. I show where St. Anthony did that, well it's a legend. I show a miracle that beatified St. Teresa of Lessex, a man grew grew back new lungs over night, but now that's not good because it's a Mary devotional site. It doesn't matter that the case is documented by the best medical evidence of the day (1916). But that's not good enough because the site it's on is not a science site and the X-rays are not on the net.

Lourdes evidence is the best. The Saintmaking miracles use the same rules and virtually the same committee, they are very exacting and rigorous. But they are not as pressure free as the Lourdes committee. There is some good evidence from the Protestant world, but not much. Protestants never think about documenting miracles. I also include what I call "the anecdotal pile." I don't think those cases prove anything, they sources are bad and docs stink, but I include them for the purpose of showing how many people in this world experience amazing things they define as "miracle." Miracles are going on all the time, and they not often given attention, not reported and not believed.

SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE FOR MIRACLES

Church's criteria as of 1977, condensed from the criteria of 1734 (on the above link)

1) The diagnostics and authenticity of the disease has been preliminarily and perfectly assessed;

2) The prognosis provides for an impending or short-term fatal outcome;

3) The recovery is sudden, without convalesce, and absolutely complete and final;

4) The prescribed treatment cannot be deemed to have resulted in a recovery or in any case could have been propitiatory for the purposes of recovery itself. These criteria are still in use nowadays, in view of their highly logical, accurate and pertinent nature.

 

[Albion]

That's a nasty thing to say.

No moreso than the comment that provoked it. I'm sure that he believes what he said; and I believe that what I replied is quite true as well. So just consider it a frank exchange of opinions.

 

[CrystalDragon]

I'm tired

Satan was a covering angel
He didn't want to cover until the fullness of time would come

He knew GOD's plan from the beginning
He just didn't like it

He was cast out PERMANENTLY from his original home

There's no hope for him and those who followed him

So while the day of their destruction lingers, they go out like roaring lions wishing to deceive whomever they can

They know they stand defeated and they know their time is short

Their work is to deceive and cause confusion and steal from GOD what should rightfully belong to GOD

The lie from the beginning remains today. Lying voices whispering "did GOD really say?"

Multiply that lie in those who have accepted the lie, and you have many tainted seeds in GOD's field sowing in seeds of confusion and deception at every turn

Where is it said that Satan rebelled? There's no mention of that in the Bible. He was just a prosecuting attorney of God in Job and that's it, at least in the Old Testament. The serpent was just a serpent.

There was no overlooked sin in Heaven. It was rebellion and it was handled immediately.

There will be rebellion again and The 1000 year reign will clean up those "loose ends immediately after the 1000 year reign when Satan is let loose to gather the "false kings" of the earth together for the great....OPEN REBELLION

Why let Satan loose if he's God's arch-enemy? And if Satan is not currently loose, then why do some people say they're influenced by Satan? They can't be if he isn't loose. And why would God who loves us unleash Satan on the world to afflict us anyway?

 

[Albion]

Where is it said that Satan rebelled? There's no mention of that in the Bible. He was just a prosecuting attorney of God in Job and that's it, at least in the Old Testament.

It's described early in Revelation 12 and also referred to in Isaiah 14.

 

[kepha31]

Eve, then Adam sinned, that's not perfection. Cain fears people beyond the presence of his immediate family out in the world. They weren't the first humans. We dig up the bones of evolution, of pre-humans, of ancient life.

So you refuse to believe Adam and Eve were, at first, sinless? You are dodging the the obvious.
There is a difference between biological man who preceded theological man. It's way off topic anyway.
It seems to me objectors to Mary's sinlessness think God is a whimp, He's too useless and has no power to make the mother of His Son free from sin at conception.

 

[miknik5]

Where is it said that Satan rebelled? There's no mention of that in the Bible. He was just a prosecuting attorney of God in Job and that's it, at least in the Old Testament. The serpent was just a serpent.



Why let Satan loose if he's God's arch-enemy? And if Satan is not currently loose, then why do some people say they're influenced by Satan? They can't be if he isn't loose. And why would God who loves us unleash Satan on the world to afflict us anyway?

Why did you think CHRIST said I saw Satan fall like lightning?( Luke 10)

What did you think Ezekiel 28 was referring to when it is written of this one who WAS in the garden of GOD and WAS a covering angel

What did you think Revelation 12 was a sign of.

Not only the sign of THE SON of MAN, but the rebellion from the beginning

When they forfeited their home and no place was found for them, they weren't kicked out it because they were serving GOD. But rather the opposite

 

[God's.child]

I've learned from convert classes that Immaculate Conception is God saving Mary at the moment she was conceived in anticipation of Jesus death.

 

[CrystalDragon]

It's described early in Revelation 12 and also referred to in Isaiah 14.

Isaiah 14 does NOT refer to Satan at all. People only think that because they cherry-pick Isaiah 14:12-15 with a preconceived notion that Lucifer is Satan. Not the case. "Lucifer" was just a translation of "Morning Star" which many kings were referred by at the time, including Pharaoh and Jesus himself. If you actually read the entire passage, it's all a proverb against the king of Babylon. The passage even says that he was powerful over his people, and wouldn't be buried like the other kings because he didn't watch over his people. Verses 16-17 even describe the king as a man who shook the earth and made kingdoms tremble. It's all a proverb of an arrogant king and nothing more.

Why did you think CHRIST said I saw Satan fall like lightning?( Luke 10)

What did you think Ezekiel 28 was referring to when it is written of this one who WAS in the garden of GOD and WAS a covering angel

What did you think Revelation 12 was a sign of.

Not only the sign of THE SON of MAN, but the rebellion from the beginning

When they forfeited their home and no place was found for them, they weren't kicked out it because they were serving GOD. But rather the opposite

Ezekiel 28 is the same deal, but a proverb regarding the king of Tyre instead. A proverb is, by definition, a simple and concrete saying, popularly known and repeated, that expresses a truth based on common sense or experience, and is often metaphor, which is the case here. Let's take a look at some other proverbs:

- "A monkey in silk is a monkey no less” – this isn't referring to a literal monkey wearing silk, but means that just because someone dresses fancy does not necessarily mean that they are fancy or of good character.

-Monday’s child is fair of face/Tuesday’s child is full of grace,/Wednesday’s child is full of woe,/Thursday’s child has far to go,/Friday’s child is loving and giving,/Saturday’s child works hard for its living/And a child that’s born on the Sabbath day/Is fair and wise and good and gay.
- Those aren't literal traits bestowed on every child born on those days, and the days of the week do not literally have children. It's a proverb that means to honor the Sabbath

- “I have been bitten by a tsetse fly” – This Tanzanian proverb doesn't mean being literally bitten by a fly, it means that a person will continuously be a pest until you pay off a debt.

-An army of sheep led by a lion would defeat an army of lions led by a sheep. - an Arabic proverb which seems to mean that people must be led by a strong leader, rather than an army of those who are strong led by a more timid person who doesn't know what they are doing.

It's exactly the same case here. The proverb alludes to how the King of Tyre at one point was great and had many blessings, his life being perfect for him (hence "You were in Eden" i.e. a place of blessings and greatness). But then, like the king of Babylon, the king of Tyre became prideful as a result of the wisdom he gained and power over the lands, and saw himself as having equal power to God, or at least being great in power. So as a result of his arrogance, he would lose the blessed life he gained and eventually fall as a result of his arrogance.

 

[Albion]

I've learned from convert classes that Immaculate Conception is God saving Mary at the moment she was conceived in anticipation of Jesus death.

"Saving her" by keeping her from inheriting original sin in the way that every other human does. Yes, that's the theory, although the Roman Catholic Church (which is the denomination best known for teaching it) didn't even make it a dogma until fairly recently.